Why I Am An Atheist
Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2016 11:51 pm
Raymond Tallis examines his happy disbelief.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/73/Why_I_Am_An_Atheist
https://philosophynow.org/issues/73/Why_I_Am_An_Atheist
For the discussion of all things philosophical, especially articles in the magazine Philosophy Now.
https://forum.philosophynow.org/
FlashDangerpants wrote:No need to read this article, as we are reliably informed he elsewhere, must be a blind denier.
Dr. Tallis seems to be one of the atheists serving as a purification of the notion of God. No raving emotional denial; just calm questioning. As I see it, his atheism is a reaction to idolatry. Einstein, Simone Weil, and others have expressed the same denial of idolatry.Simone Weil has observed: "There are two atheisms of which one is a purification of the notion of God."
- William Robert Miller (ed.), The New Christianity (New York: Delacorte Press 1967) p 267; in Paul Schilling,
God in an age of atheism (Abingdon: Nashville 1969) p 17
Idolatry is the result of the lack of conscious attention. This lack produces self justifying imagination including idolatry taking the place of what is beyond our comprehension. Since only a few will take the practice of conscious attention seriously, everything will continue as is. It is the norm for life in Plato's cave.Idolatry comes from the fact that, while thirsting for absolute good, we do not possess the power of supernatural attention and we have not the patience to allow it to develop (Simone Weil, Gravity and Grace 53).
Is there another reason not to? Same with werewolves? I've not seen a werewolf, nor it's tracks, nor it's poop. Perhaps they are just tidy, and leave no evidence? Yes, that must be it... I now believe in werewolves.henry quirk wrote:From the piece...
"The worst reason for not believing in God (though the least obviously bad), is that there is no evidence for His existence."
This is the foundation for my disbelief: no evidence, as I assess things.
Guess I'm a bad atheist.
*shrug*
I can live with that.
You and me both, Henry. Let's count ourselves lucky.henry quirk wrote:"Is there another reason not to?"
Not that I can tell (or that makes sense to me).
Just like a religious nut to make proclamations about the intent of a person, never having read what he has written.Nick_A wrote:[
Dr. Tallis seems to be one of the atheists serving as a purification of the notion of God. No raving emotional denial; just calm questioning. As I see it, his atheism is a reaction to idolatry. Einstein, Simone Weil, and others have expressed the same denial of idolatry.
I would agree that the idea of a personal god that gets insulted if you do wrong is contradictory. The personal god or putting a face on the ineffable and attributing human motives to it is idolatry which is what I believe Dr.Tallis is referring to."intellectually the case does not rest on the lack of evidence for God, or the bad behaviour of believers and religious institutions, but on the idea of God itself, which insofar as it is not entirely empty, is self-contradictory, and makes less sense than that which it purports to explain."
You incorrigible little dreamer!marjoram_blues wrote:
Would really like to read a sensible response to this article from Nicky.
Yes, I think so. Lack of evidence for or against the existence of something is devoid of information. Not so much like werewolves as extraterrestrials. The possibility is not ruled out; the evidence may yet be forthcoming. I'm sure there is a lot of stuff still out there that we don't eff or comprehend, and no amount of Simonoid raving will make any of it relevant unless and until we catch a whiff thereof.Dalek Prime - - Is there another reason not to?
Then how is it that you think you can comprehend it at all... and think you know that it exists?Nick_A wrote:However, the ineffable transcendent god beyond beyond time and space, incomprehensible for Man, and the source of creation, cannot be contradictory.